The potential income streams in the West Midlands from above ground rural biomass include renewable energy and fuel generation, carbon sequestration of bio­chars, and agricultural benefits from the use of biochar and ash from energy and fuel generation or charring alone. It is likely that tradable sequestered carbon will be reliant on the supplies from bioenergy generation plants that are able to comply with both emission and biochar quality standards. However, a price on carbon may help offset the additional costs of the coproduction of electricity and biochar from biomass. (Table 26.1 outlines key benefits, costs and barriers to biochar compliance to carbon markets.) The Australian Farm Institute (2011) estimates an income reduction of be­tween 1.4% and 1.6% from a carbon price based on elec­tricity consumption for a WA mixed farming enterprise of 4900 ha (2400 ha cropped and about 2000 head of live­stock, mainly sheep), assuming agriculture and trans­port fuels are excluded from any carbon liability (Australian Farm Institute, 2011). In contrast to concerns of a carbon price reducing agricultural profitability, this work presents the case that integrating new sequestra­tion options into conventional production systems from low-cost biochars produced from agricultural wastes (with sufficient operational safety consider­ations) may offset costs in the West Midlands. The prof­itability of income streams (presented in Table 26.1) are highly sensitive to (and often dependent upon) govern­ment subsidies for renewable energy, a carbon price, and also the location-specific demand for biochar and energy. Similarly, agricultural effects of biochar addition will vary more with soil type, seasonal conditions, and animal nutrition characteristics. In complex and uncer­tain circumstances, predictive modeling can become particularly challenging. However, the agricultural effects (where they occur) will likely provide a more solid basis for emerging industry development than the highly sensitive and evolving carbon and electricity markets. If agricultural benefits, initially at least, exhibit less risky investments to individual farms than bio­energy cooperatives or carbon sequestration pooling activities, then agricultural benefits may be a more suit­able foundation for the establishment of biomass-based industrial developments than energy or carbon seques­tration policies in the initial phases.